Sin v. Canada, (2015) 472 F.T.R. 189 (FC)

• Judge: O'Reilly, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 10, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 472 F.T.R. 189 (FC);2015 FC 276

Sin v. Can. (2015), 472 F.T.R. 189 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.045

Alexandr Sin (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

(T-1734-14; 2015 FC 276)

Indexed As: Sin v. Canada

Federal Court

O'Reilly, J.

March 4, 2015.

Summary:

Sin, a citizen of Russia, applied for permanent residence as an investor. Before his application had been processed, Canada introduced legislation that terminated pending investor applications. The legislation provided that applicants had no recourse in respect of their terminated applications. Sin sued, claiming compensation for his out-of-pocket expenses and damages for loss of opportunity. He maintained that bilateral treaties protected the rights of investors, and moved for permission to notify prospective members of the proposed class action. Canada moved to strike the claim.

The Federal Court allowed Canada's motion. Sin's claim could not succeed; it followed that Sin's request for pre-certification notice could not be granted.

Aliens - Topic 3.2

Definitions and general principles - International Conventions and obligations (incl. incorporation of) - [See Aliens - Topic 1213 ].

Aliens - Topic 1213

Admission - Immigrants - Entrepreneurs and investors (incl. Immigrant Investor Program) - The Government of Canada introduced legislation that terminated all applications for permanent residence from foreign investors that had not been approved prior to February 11, 2014 - Sin's application was caught by that legislation - The legislation stipulated that applicants had no recourse or indemnity for the termination of their applications - Sin argued that his claim was viable because international agreements protected the rights of investors and requested permission to notify prospective members of the proposed class action - Canada moved to strike the claim - The Federal Court allowed Canada's motion - The claim did not disclose a cause of action - First, the legislation did not conflict with the international agreements cited by Sin - There was no need, therefore, to read down the legislation to accommodate Canada's obligations under international law - Second, the international agreements had not been incorporated into Canadian domestic law - In any event, the agreements would directly conflict with the legislation, which expressly denied Sin and similarly situated investors any remedy beyond compensation for their investment and ancillary fees - The Court dismissed Sin's request to issue a pre-certification notice to potential class members.

Crown - Topic 1646

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences, bars or exclusions - Statutory authority - [See Aliens - Topic 1213 ].

Crown - Topic 4081

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - Defences - Bars or exclusions - General - [See Aliens - Topic 1213 ].

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - For damages - [See Aliens - Topic 1213 ].

Statutes - Topic 526

Interpretation - General principles - Consistency with comity of nations or international law - [See Aliens - Topic 1213 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference as to Powers to Levy Rates on Foreign Legations, [1943] S.C.R. 208, refd to. [para. 12].

Janssen Inc. et al. v. Teva Canada Ltd. et al., [2015] N.R. Uned. 12; 2015 FCA 36, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hape (L.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 87.5(1), sect. 87.5(7) [Annex].

Counsel:

Dan Miller, for the plaintiff;

Martin Anderson, Lorne McClenaghan and Charles Julian Jubenville, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Dan Miller, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

These motions were heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 10, 2015, before O'Reilly, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following order and reasons, dated March 4, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.